Comments on: KBR might seek federal funds in truck driver case http://mssparky.com/2009/07/kbr-might-seek-federal-funds-in-truck-driver-case/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:15:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Jims thoughts http://mssparky.com/2009/07/kbr-might-seek-federal-funds-in-truck-driver-case/comment-page-1/#comment-3206 Jims thoughts Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:30:26 +0000 http://mssparky.com/?p=3159#comment-3206 Thats where I was going, in a roundabout way as usual. If they are guilty then they pay the costs but can claim them if improperly charged or not enough found to convict them on. Thanks for the clarification and I doubt there are going to be many cases wehre they will be able to claim anything back. Thats where I was going, in a roundabout way as usual. If they are guilty then they pay the costs but can claim them if improperly charged or not enough found to convict them on.

Thanks for the clarification and I doubt there are going to be many cases wehre they will be able to claim anything back.

]]> By: Anonymous http://mssparky.com/2009/07/kbr-might-seek-federal-funds-in-truck-driver-case/comment-page-1/#comment-3205 Anonymous Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:20:04 +0000 http://mssparky.com/?p=3159#comment-3205 Jim Thoughts stated: "If they could do this I am sure they would have tried it already for the Fuel fraud in Afghanistan and the other issues currently under review as well as upcoming cases and are they going to try this for Congressional hearing? That would be something to see" KBR can charge the US Government for the Congressional hearings. Under FAR part 31.205-22 Lobbying and Political Activity Costs. Under this FAR cost prinicple, providing documents or support for any Congressional request is an allowable costs. So if you hear that KBR charges this costs, understand that it is allowed and any contractor can claim that cost. For charging the other legal suits, Nothing in FAR states that they cannot except: FAR 31.205-47 Legal Costs - paragraph B states that the costs are unallowable with a conviction of fraud. This would be your Bagram Air Field, or the procurment managers that were found/pled guilty in Kuwait. The cost may be unreasonable, but the government will probably allow the costs. It is really up to the Contracting Officers. As far as the article, I don't doubt KBR will charge that back to the government. They have no reason not too. The costs are related to work done on a contract. The incident was unfortunate, but until some kind of Fruad or what can be proved, the government will pay the cost. Jim Thoughts stated:

“If they could do this I am sure they would have tried it already for the Fuel fraud in Afghanistan and the other issues currently under review as well as upcoming cases and are they going to try this for Congressional hearing? That would be something to see”

KBR can charge the US Government for the Congressional hearings. Under FAR part 31.205-22 Lobbying and Political Activity Costs. Under this FAR cost prinicple, providing documents or support for any Congressional request is an allowable costs. So if you hear that KBR charges this costs, understand that it is allowed and any contractor can claim that cost.

For charging the other legal suits, Nothing in FAR states that they cannot except:

FAR 31.205-47 Legal Costs – paragraph B states that the costs are unallowable with a conviction of fraud. This would be your Bagram Air Field, or the procurment managers that were found/pled guilty in Kuwait.

The cost may be unreasonable, but the government will probably allow the costs. It is really up to the Contracting Officers.

As far as the article, I don’t doubt KBR will charge that back to the government. They have no reason not too. The costs are related to work done on a contract. The incident was unfortunate, but until some kind of Fruad or what can be proved, the government will pay the cost.

]]> By: Baboo Remembers http://mssparky.com/2009/07/kbr-might-seek-federal-funds-in-truck-driver-case/comment-page-1/#comment-3196 Baboo Remembers Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:23:25 +0000 http://mssparky.com/?p=3159#comment-3196 Negligence is the key word. Who is this KBR attorney Meadows, It obvious it he didn’t graduate from an Ivy League school such as Harvard, Yale or Princeton. If this Texas Judge vote in favor of KBR he should resign his post from the judicial bench with decision appealed by the defendant and retried in the U.S. Supreme Court and not in Texas because KBR is a “Houston” based company. He wasn’t paid from a Texas based company. I see Heather Browne has decided to lay low for a bit. Negligence is the key word. Who is this KBR attorney Meadows, It obvious it he didn’t graduate from an Ivy League school such as Harvard, Yale or Princeton. If this Texas Judge vote in favor of KBR he should resign his post from the judicial bench with decision appealed by the defendant and retried in the U.S. Supreme Court and not in Texas because KBR is a “Houston” based company. He wasn’t paid from a Texas based company. I see Heather Browne has decided to lay low for a bit.

]]> By: Jims thoughts http://mssparky.com/2009/07/kbr-might-seek-federal-funds-in-truck-driver-case/comment-page-1/#comment-3193 Jims thoughts Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:00:28 +0000 http://mssparky.com/?p=3159#comment-3193 Meadows, the KBR lawyer, said, “nothing supports the allegation that anyone at KBR did anything to intentionally harm fellow workers.” Are they crazy? I hear all the time about the proof of KBR putting their people at harm for any and no reason at all. I am sure the contract stated that KBR were supposed to act in accordance with safe and defensive planning in mind and that if they failed to act in the spirit of the contract that they would be liable to costs. If they could do this I am sure they would have tried it already for the Fuel fraud in Afghanistan and the other issues currently under review as well as upcoming cases and are they going to try this for Congressional hearing? That would be something to see. Meadows, the KBR lawyer, said, “nothing supports the allegation that anyone at KBR did anything to intentionally harm fellow workers.”

Are they crazy? I hear all the time about the proof of KBR putting their people at harm for any and no reason at all.

I am sure the contract stated that KBR were supposed to act in accordance with safe and defensive planning in mind and that if they failed to act in the spirit of the contract that they would be liable to costs. If they could do this I am sure they would have tried it already for the Fuel fraud in Afghanistan and the other issues currently under review as well as upcoming cases and are they going to try this for Congressional hearing? That would be something to see.

]]>